• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

S

Socerer 01

International Captain
even if you’re applying all the filters and **** and factors and compensation Bradman would average what, 70? that’s still the best in test history by a big margin

just admit that the guy was a statistical freak, his achievements compared to contemporaries and players across time are freakish even compared to others sports icons
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Socerer 01 said:
even if you’re applying all the filters and **** and factors and compensation Bradman would average what, 70? that’s still the best in test history by a big margin

just admit that the guy was a statistical freak, his achievements compared to contemporaries and players across time are freakish even compared to others sports icons
Click to expand...
Are you talking to me?
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Another important reason, that I forgot to mention, why Bradman's average doesn't accurately reflect his worth is that in his time the quality of play was poorer ... I can hear the alarm bells ringing in every sane poster's mind – but wait, it isn't some misguided 'dyouknowwhat, they weren't as good back then wouldn't stand up to modern play just not at the same level, shouldn't be included in any all time XIs, real cricket started in precisely 1970 .., meaning that extreme averages were more common than they would be for players in a more competitive era. A player of a similar level of domination in the year 2000 wouldn't average 100 – maybe 93, shall we say, assuming that all other factors are equal.

If you want a more coherent explanation, I believe some famous person made this point about baseball, but I forget who.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Starfighter said:
That doesn't seem to be based on any analysis of the actual statistics.
Click to expand...
Yeah I could just say I thought the 2005-2015 period was an infinitely higher standard than other era and therefore Vusi Sibanda > Viv Richards. You can't disprove it but it's dumb and you can't then argue it makes "statistical sense".

I think we have to just assume that all eras have an equal inherent quality, but some are better for batting/worse for bowling and vice versa. Adjusting for era is important but it shouldn't mean being able to say "this era was just crap for everyone" - that's a cop out. If we're talking about a 20 run drop in Bradman's real average then it should mean you really ****ing rate the bowlers who did well during it.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ataraxia said:
Another important reason, that I forgot to mention, why Bradman's average doesn't accurately reflect his worth is that in his time the quality of play was poorer ... I can hear the alarm bells ringing in every sane poster's mind – but wait, it isn't some misguided 'dyouknowwhat, they weren't as good back then wouldn't stand up to modern play just not at the same level, shouldn't be included in any all time XIs, real cricket started in precisely 1970 .., meaning that extreme averages were more common than they would be for players in a more competitive era. A player of a similar level of domination in the year 2000 wouldn't average 100 – maybe 93, shall we say, assuming that all other factors are equal.

If you want a more coherent explanation, I believe some famous person made this point about baseball, but I forget who.
Click to expand...
Extreme averages didnt happen even in that era though.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
OverratedSanity said:
Extreme averages didnt happen even in that era though.
Click to expand...
(i've heard there was one)
Prince EWS said:
Yeah I could just say I thought the 2005-2015 period was an infinitely higher standard than other era and therefore Vusi Sibanda > Viv Richards. You can't disprove it but it's dumb and you can't then argue it makes "statistical sense".

I think we have to just assume that all eras have an equal inherent quality, but some are better for batting/worse for bowling and vice versa. Adjusting for era is important but it shouldn't mean being able to say "this era was just crap for everyone" - that's a cop out. If we're talking about a 20 run drop in Bradman's real average then it should mean you really ****ing rate the bowlers who did well during it.
Click to expand...
By and large I agree with this post, so I'm not sure if you are following the argument? Like, the core tenet of my ATG philosophy is that there is an ~equal number of ATGs from each era, that all players should be compared to their era, and I think I hold this to a higher importance than anyone else on the forum.

So the first paragraph seems from my perspective to miss the point. It's just that if it was an infinitely higher standard then anyone who averaged 50 in it would be an absolute demigod, as the distribution of averages in their time should be very clustered about the norm due its high quality. So Sibanda would actually be viewed as way worse because his average was so far below the norm for a 2005–2015 player.

re: you really ****ing rate the bowlers who did well during it. I kinda do tbh, but I feel like it misses the point. What I'm saying is that better averages were comparatively easier to achieve then. So in accordance with rating the players from any era equally they should be rated worse. I guess the corollary is that those who did badly in eras with a broad spread of averages, the William Shalderses and Vic Richardsons of the world, should be rated higher than their raw averages might suggest. Which I don't think I agree with.*

Do you think that a greater proportion of test players from the 30s would be rated as ATGs than of the 00s, and why so?

* edit: though I guess I already would rate them higher than a similar player today (for Shalders) or in the 00s (for Richardson), if we are to completely ignore the existence of FC records for the mo.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Socerer 01 said:
not specifically you as others have said similar things too
Click to expand...
ataraxia said:
The problem there is that that is still leagues above anyone else to an unbelievable degree. The distance in batting average (std.) between him and a Dravid is greater than the distance between Dravid and Crawley, or Dravid and Benaud. There's a reason he is so lauded.
Click to expand...
Popping this in here for avoidance of doubt. Bradman's such an amazing anomaly.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
Yeah I could just say I thought the 2005-2015 period was an infinitely higher standard than other era and therefore Vusi Sibanda > Viv Richards. You can't disprove it but it's dumb and you can't then argue it makes "statistical sense".

I think we have to just assume that all eras have an equal inherent quality, but some are better for batting/worse for bowling and vice versa. Adjusting for era is important but it shouldn't mean being able to say "this era was just crap for everyone" - that's a cop out. If we're talking about a 20 run drop in Bradman's real average then it should mean you really ****ing rate the bowlers who did well during it.
Click to expand...
Grum was better than Murali and Warne, I’ll die on that hill.

And O’Reilly is just in another league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top